|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 12, 2014 12:40:37 GMT
I can provide one real reason for being "for it" and that is because it would eliminate the roughly 11 million undocumented (illegal) immigrant problem allowing the INS and Border Patrol to focus in "criminal" aliens that don't come here to work but instead come here to commit crimes. It could easily reduce annual federal spending by $50 billion a year where the INS and Border Patrol's time and money is spent on chasing down immigrants that come here just to earn a living.
Even ignoring the positive economic expansion, job creation, and government tax revenues increases from the legal immigration that's 50 billion reasons to support it IMHO.
How might our allowing legal residents of the US (who are actively seeking American citizenship) to vote in federal elections, have any impact upon the 11 million illegals in the US?
Hmmmmm, well maybe the tens of millions of "legal" immigrants would tend to vote for pro-immigration candidates as opposed to anti-immigration advocates but that's just speculation.
Only an open immigration policy addresses the roughly 11 million undocumented (illegal) immigrants as that would result in them becoming documented (legal) immigrants and only Congress can do that. Congress created the "illegal" immigration problem and only Congress can fix it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 12, 2014 12:48:37 GMT
I completely agree that these politicians do not generally plan ahead. (It is much easier to get elected--and re-elected--with a program replete with cotton candy than it is to do so with an eat-your-spinach platform.) And I would be very much in favor of our increasing the fuel tax by one-third--or whatever the necessary amount might be--if it were done in a revenue-neutral manner (with an offset, say, in the federal income tax).
Considering that we have deficits in the hundreds of billions of dollars these continued calls for "revenue neutral" are nothing but advocacy for deficit spending. If all government actions are "revenue neutral" then the deficits never go away.
If we fully fund federal highway infrastructure with the fuel tax, which is what it's supposed to do, then logically it reduces the "deficits" and elimination of the deficits should be our primary goal. I simply don't understand the "Republican" position that we shouldn't reduce the deficits.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 13, 2014 0:16:04 GMT
How might our allowing legal residents of the US (who are actively seeking American citizenship) to vote in federal elections, have any impact upon the 11 million illegals in the US?
Hmmmmm, well maybe the tens of millions of "legal" immigrants would tend to vote for pro-immigration candidates as opposed to anti-immigration advocates but that's just speculation.
Only an open immigration policy addresses the roughly 11 million undocumented (illegal) immigrants as that would result in them becoming documented (legal) immigrants and only Congress can do that. Congress created the "illegal" immigration problem and only Congress can fix it.
Many of those whom others refer to, blithely, as "anti-immigration candidates," merely wish to see the law upheld, and our national sovereignty kept intact. Very few are seeking lower annual quotas for legal immigration. And I agree that Congress (as well as then-President Reagan) created the problem in 1986 by (naively) accepting Simpson-Mazzoli--a.k.a. The Immigration Reform and Control Act--as a way to put an effective end to future illegal immigration. |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 13, 2014 0:23:06 GMT
I completely agree that these politicians do not generally plan ahead. (It is much easier to get elected--and re-elected--with a program replete with cotton candy than it is to do so with an eat-your-spinach platform.) And I would be very much in favor of our increasing the fuel tax by one-third--or whatever the necessary amount might be--if it were done in a revenue-neutral manner (with an offset, say, in the federal income tax). Considering that we have deficits in the hundreds of billions of dollars these continued calls for "revenue neutral" are nothing but advocacy for deficit spending. If all government actions are "revenue neutral" then the deficits never go away.
If we fully fund federal highway infrastructure with the fuel tax, which is what it's supposed to do, then logically it reduces the "deficits" and elimination of the deficits should be our primary goal. I simply don't understand the "Republican" position that we shouldn't reduce the deficits.
Your view--and the view of the left in general--appears to be that our annual deficits are the result of insufficient revenues (read: taxes that are just not high enough and ubiquitous enough). I take the opposite view, viz.: These deficits are the result of out-of-control federal spending. Let us be clear: Annual deficits are entirely unacceptable. Therefore, if we really wish, as a nation, to be governed by The Benefactor State, then we should fund it properly. But I reject the fundamental premise; therefore, I necessarily reject the resulting conclusion. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 13, 2014 12:25:26 GMT
Many of those whom others refer to, blithely, as "anti-immigration candidates," merely wish to see the law upheld, and our national sovereignty kept intact. Very few are seeking lower annual quotas for legal immigration. And I agree that Congress (as well as then-President Reagan) created the problem in 1986 by (naively) accepting Simpson-Mazzoli--a.k.a. The Immigration Reform and Control Act--as a way to put an effective end to future ilegal immigration.
Let us address this from a purely "caplitalistic" perspective. Where there is a demand a source of supply will be created. So long as there is a reasonable "legal" means of supply the demand will be met through a lawful means but if the laws impose a restriction where the "legal" means of supply is not cost effective or prohibited the supply will be provided for by the black market. The perfect example is the drug prohibitions laws. There is a demand for illegal drugs so the black market furnishes them.
The same problem relates to the demand for immigrant labor. If there is a legal means for the immigrant to come to fill the demand for their labor then they will do so but if that means is not provided for they will become a part of the "black market" in fulfilling the demand for their labor.
In 1986 Reagan addressed "immigration reform" and the fact that "black market"" immigrant laborers were in the US but then re-imposed the same problem of "limited immigration" under a quota system where the "demand for immigrant labor" was not met and so the "black market" in immigrant labor attempted to address the "demand" for immigrant labor.
As long as we limit immigration the "black market" will attempt to "fill the demand" for immigrant labor and we will always have "undocumented" immigrants in the US because we've created a black market in labor.
I don't know why anyone doesn't understand this simple fact because it is based upon the "Law of Supply and Demand" that is a basic principle of capitalism.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 13, 2014 12:54:13 GMT
Considering that we have deficits in the hundreds of billions of dollars these continued calls for "revenue neutral" are nothing but advocacy for deficit spending. If all government actions are "revenue neutral" then the deficits never go away.
If we fully fund federal highway infrastructure with the fuel tax, which is what it's supposed to do, then logically it reduces the "deficits" and elimination of the deficits should be our primary goal. I simply don't understand the "Republican" position that we shouldn't reduce the deficits.
Your view--and the view of the left in general--appears to be that our annual deficits are the result of insufficient revenues (read: taxes that are just not high enough and ubiquitous enough). I take the opposite view, viz.: These deficits are the result of out-of-control federal spending. Let us be clear: Annual deficits are entirely unacceptable. Therefore, if we really wish, as a nation, to be governed by The Benefactor State, then we should fund it properly. But I reject the fundamental premise; therefore, I necessarily reject the resulting conclusion.
No, my point it that we can all accept that there are "necessary expenditures" that must be funded. What our opinions are related to what is "necessary" and what is "unnecessary" is irrelevant because we don't have the responsibility in defining what is necessary or not necessary.
We've delegated the responsibility to Congress to determine what is "necessary spending" on our behalf and Congress has done that.
We've also delegated the responsibility to Congress to "collect enough in taxation to fund the expenditures" it authorizes but Congress HAS NOT done that.
We are certainly entitled to our own opinions related to what is "necesssary" but we must accept that we delegated that authority to Congress. We can also discuss our opinions on how the "necessary" expenditures defined by Congress can be reduced but that doesn't change the "authorized expenditures" that Congress is responsible for funding through taxation.
Bottom line, agree with it or not the Congress has fulfilled it's responsibilities related to authorizing the "necessary" expenditures of government but it has failed to fufill it's responsibility to to fund those expenditures.
My position is simply. Congress has a responsibility to fund the "necessary spending" it has determined to be necessary but it is not doing that. It must do that NOW because it is failing in it's Constitutionally delegated roles and responsibilities by not funding the expenditures.
In the future, once the current expenditures are fully funded, then we can address the means for reducing the "necessary" expenditures through pragmatic and reasonable means.
Perhaps my best example is "Welfare Spending" that does not reduce poverty but instead merely mitigates the effects of poverty. If we want to reduce the "necessity" for welfare spending to mitigate the effects of poverty then logically we need to reduce poverty that drives the financial necessity to mitigate it's effects.
Reducing poverty = Reducing welfare assistance necessary to mitiage the effects of poverty.
That makes sense to me.
The next example I would provide, that drives a much greater "general budget" expenditures than welfare assistance, is "defense" spending that has little to do with actually defending the United States. The US is playing "World Cop" but the truth is that the American taxpayers can't afford to police the world.
Limiting the US military to it's Constitutional role of Defending of the Nation = Reducing the costs of the US military.
That also makes sense to me.
In the meantime we still have a Congress that's fulfilling it's Constitutionally established role of establishing the "necessary expenditures" but not fulfilling it's Constitutionally established role of "funding the necessary expenditures" that it has established.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 13, 2014 16:04:24 GMT
Many of those whom others refer to, blithely, as "anti-immigration candidates," merely wish to see the law upheld, and our national sovereignty kept intact. Very few are seeking lower annual quotas for legal immigration. And I agree that Congress (as well as then-President Reagan) created the problem in 1986 by (naively) accepting Simpson-Mazzoli--a.k.a. The Immigration Reform and Control Act--as a way to put an effective end to future ilegal immigration.
Let us address this from a purely "caplitalistic" perspective. Where there is a demand a source of supply will be created. So long as there is a reasonable "legal" means of supply the demand will be met through a lawful means but if the laws impose a restriction where the "legal" means of supply is not cost effective or prohibited the supply will be provided for by the black market. The perfect example is the drug prohibitions laws. There is a demand for illegal drugs so the black market furnishes them.
The same problem relates to the demand for immigrant labor. If there is a legal means for the immigrant to come to fill the demand for their labor then they will do so but if that means is not provided for they will become a part of the "black market" in fulfilling the demand for their labor.
In 1986 Reagan addressed "immigration reform" and the fact that "black market"" immigrant laborers were in the US but then re-imposed the same problem of "limited immigration" under a quota system where the "demand for immigrant labor" was not met and so the "black market" in immigrant labor attempted to address the "demand" for immigrant labor.
As long as we limit immigration the "black market" will attempt to "fill the demand" for immigrant labor and we will always have "undocumented" immigrants in the US because we've created a black market in labor.
I don't know why anyone doesn't understand this simple fact because it is based upon the "Law of Supply and Demand" that is a basic principle of capitalism.
I am certainly an unapologetic capatilist--but not an anarcho-capitalist. The best way to address the imbalance of which you speak, in my opinion, would be through a robust guest-worker program. Even a slight increase in our annual quotas would be far preferable to our winking at the flouting of our law (and the attendant undermining of our national sovereignty). |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 13, 2014 16:12:17 GMT
Your view--and the view of the left in general--appears to be that our annual deficits are the result of insufficient revenues (read: taxes that are just not high enough and ubiquitous enough). I take the opposite view, viz.: These deficits are the result of out-of-control federal spending. Let us be clear: Annual deficits are entirely unacceptable. Therefore, if we really wish, as a nation, to be governed by The Benefactor State, then we should fund it properly. But I reject the fundamental premise; therefore, I necessarily reject the resulting conclusion.
No, my point it that we can all accept that there are "necessary expenditures" that must be funded. What our opinions are related to what is "necessary" and what is "unnecessary" is irrelevant because we don't have the responsibility in defining what is necessary or not necessary.
We've delegated the responsibility to Congress to determine what is "necessary spending" on our behalf and Congress has done that.
We've also delegated the responsibility to Congress to "collect enough in taxation to fund the expenditures" it authorizes but Congress HAS NOT done that.
We are certainly entitled to our own opinions related to what is "necesssary" but we must accept that we delegated that authority to Congress. We can also discuss our opinions on how the "necessary" expenditures defined by Congress can be reduced but that doesn't change the "authorized expenditures" that Congress is responsible for funding through taxation.
Bottom line, agree with it or not the Congress has fulfilled it's responsibilities related to authorizing the "necessary" expenditures of government but it has failed to fufill it's responsibility to to fund those expenditures.
My position is simply. Congress has a responsibility to fund the "necessary spending" it has determined to be necessary but it is not doing that. It must do that NOW because it is failing in it's Constitutionally delegated roles and responsibilities by not funding the expenditures.
In the future, once the current expenditures are fully funded, then we can address the means for reducing the "necessary" expenditures through pragmatic and reasonable means.
Perhaps my best example is "Welfare Spending" that does not reduce poverty but instead merely mitigates the effects of poverty. If we want to reduce the "necessity" for welfare spending to mitigate the effects of poverty then logically we need to reduce poverty that drives the financial necessity to mitigate it's effects.
Reducing poverty = Reducing welfare assistance necessary to mitiage the effects of poverty.
That makes sense to me.
The next example I would provide, that drives a much greater "general budget" expenditures than welfare assistance, is "defense" spending that has little to do with actually defending the United States. The US is playing "World Cop" but the truth is that the American taxpayers can't afford to police the world.
Limiting the US military to it's Constitutional role of Defending of the Nation = Reducing the costs of the US military.
That also makes sense to me.
In the meantime we still have a Congress that's fulfilling it's Constitutionally established role of establishing the "necessary expenditures" but not fulfilling it's Constitutionally established role of "funding the necessary expenditures" that it has established.
Many social programs are attached to a rule--a rule passed by a previous Congress--that places them on autopilot: Annual increases of X amount are baked into the cake. But this is not a law of nature. Rather, it is a law created by a prior Congress--and one that ought to be undone, in my opinion. This could lead to hugely diminished federal expenditures each year. The fact that the current (Republican-controlled) House is not fully funding the expenditures demanded by a prior (Democrat-controlled) Congress does not especially alarm me--to phrase it as mildly as possible... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 14, 2014 11:15:41 GMT
I am certainly an unapologetic capatilist--but not an anarcho-capitalist. The best way to address the imbalance of which you speak, in my opinion, would be through a robust guest-worker program. Even a slight increase in our annual quotas would be far preferable to our winking at the flouting of our law (and the attendant undermining of our national sovereignty).
The "quota" system is "economic protectionism" that is juxtaposed to the principles of "laisse-faire" (free market) capitalism. A person cannot be a "capitalist" and support an immigration quota system. How strange it is that generally "conservatives" express opposition to adverse government economic regulation but embrace "economic protectionism" that is perhaps the most adverse government economic regulation in the United States.
Apparently you're claiming that free market capitalism undermines our national sovereignty. I have to disagree with that opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 14, 2014 11:35:49 GMT
Many social programs are attached to a rule--a rule passed by a previous Congress--that places them on autopilot: Annual increases of X amount are baked into the cake. But this is not a law of nature. Rather, it is a law created by a prior Congress--and one that ought to be undone, in my opinion. This could lead to hugely diminished federal expenditures each year. The fact that the current (Republican-controlled) House is not fully funding the expenditures demanded by a prior (Democrat-controlled) Congress does not especially alarm me--to phrase it as mildly as possible...
The greatest flaw in our political system is that when a person is elected to Congress they represent ALL of the people in there state if they're a Senator or all of the people in their district if they're a member of the House. They don't just represent their political party. When a law is passed by Congress it doesn't matter whether it was passed with a majority of "Democratic" or "Republican" support. It is the Law as Passed by Congress.
Yes, many of our authorized expenditures do include "cost of living" increases that are automatic to address a problem created by our government which is INFLATION!!! Government can stop these automatic increases by stopping inflation anytime it chooses to do so.
ADDRESS THE PROBLEM!!
The problem is inflation that necessitates the increase in the benefits.
I'm not surprised that Republicans refuse to fund authorized government expenditures for partisan reasons either but its is fiscally irresponsible and should rightfully be condemned because they are refusing to fulfill a delegated role and responsibility of Congress established by the US Constitution. As long as the Republicans refuse to fund the authorized expenditures of government by collecting enough revenue through taxation they cannot claim to be fiscally responsible.
Let me provide an example of "fiscal responsiblity" that will exemplify what I mean.
A person might have an "adjustable rate mortgage" that goes up with inflation and the current costs are considered to be too high. It doesn't matter how that ARM came into existance the problem needs to be addressed. That person might seek to change that to a "fixed-rate" mortgage in the future to reduce the future costs of the mortgage but in the meantime they still have to make the monthy mortgage payments. The person doesn't simply not pay the mortgage because the pricetag has become a burden especially if they have the means of obtaining the money to pay the mortgage. They might have to work overtime to pay the mortgage but paying the mortgage is still a requirement if they are going to be fiscally responsible.
There is more than enough gross personal income in the United States to fund all of the authorized expenditures of government. We don't have a problem with "not enough money" to fund our government. What we have a problem with is that we're not collecting enough in taxation from those that can afford to fund our government with money that they don't even need.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 15, 2014 1:34:23 GMT
I am certainly an unapologetic capatilist--but not an anarcho-capitalist. The best way to address the imbalance of which you speak, in my opinion, would be through a robust guest-worker program. Even a slight increase in our annual quotas would be far preferable to our winking at the flouting of our law (and the attendant undermining of our national sovereignty).
The "quota" system is "economic protectionism" that is juxtaposed to the principles of "laisse-faire" (free market) capitalism. A person cannot be a "capitalist" and support an immigration quota system. How strange it is that generally "conservatives" express opposition to adverse government economic regulation but embrace "economic protectionism" that is perhaps the most adverse government economic regulation in the United States.
Apparently you're claiming that free market capitalism undermines our national sovereignty. I have to disagree with that opinion.
No, I am asserting that anarcho-capitalism "undermines our national sovereignty." |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 15, 2014 1:46:36 GMT
Many social programs are attached to a rule--a rule passed by a previous Congress--that places them on autopilot: Annual increases of X amount are baked into the cake. But this is not a law of nature. Rather, it is a law created by a prior Congress--and one that ought to be undone, in my opinion. This could lead to hugely diminished federal expenditures each year. The fact that the current (Republican-controlled) House is not fully funding the expenditures demanded by a prior (Democrat-controlled) Congress does not especially alarm me--to phrase it as mildly as possible...
The greatest flaw in our political system is that when a person is elected to Congress they represent ALL of the people in there state if they're a Senator or all of the people in their district if they're a member of the House. They don't just represent their political party. When a law is passed by Congress it doesn't matter whether it was passed with a majority of "Democratic" or "Republican" support. It is the Law as Passed by Congress.
Yes, many of our authorized expenditures do include "cost of living" increases that are automatic to address a problem created by our government which is INFLATION!!! Government can stop these automatic increases by stopping inflation anytime it chooses to do so.
ADDRESS THE PROBLEM!!
The problem is inflation that necessitates the increase in the benefits.
I'm not surprised that Republicans refuse to fund authorized government expenditures for partisan reasons either but its is fiscally irresponsible and should rightfully be condemned because they are refusing to fulfill a delegated role and responsibility of Congress established by the US Constitution. As long as the Republicans refuse to fund the authorized expenditures of government by collecting enough revenue through taxation they cannot claim to be fiscally responsible.
Let me provide an example of "fiscal responsiblity" that will exemplify what I mean.
A person might have an "adjustable rate mortgage" that goes up with inflation and the current costs are considered to be too high. It doesn't matter how that ARM came into existance the problem needs to be addressed. That person might seek to change that to a "fixed-rate" mortgage in the future to reduce the future costs of the mortgage but in the meantime they still have to make the monthy mortgage payments. The person doesn't simply not pay the mortgage because the pricetag has become a burden especially if they have the means of obtaining the money to pay the mortgage. They might have to work overtime to pay the mortgage but paying the mortgage is still a requirement if they are going to be fiscally responsible.
There is more than enough gross personal income in the United States to fund all of the authorized expenditures of government. We don't have a problem with "not enough money" to fund our government. What we have a problem with is that we're not collecting enough in taxation from those that can afford to fund our government with money that they don't even need.
Again, it is evident that you believe that the imbalance between the federal government's annual income and its annual expenditures is a matter of insufficient taxation--especially upon The (Hated!) Rich. I would beg to differ. The best way to stop inflation, in my opinion--in fact, probably the only way--would be to return to the gold standard, which was largely abandoned by FDR, and then entirely jetissoned by Richard Nixon. And I would certainly favor this; although I am not very optimistic about its being accomplished. As for your analogy as concerning the ARM: The fact is that these autopilot increases could be very quickly reversed by Congress, if it wished to do so. But members of both major parties tend to be averse to root-canal economics--it is just not the best way to get elected or re-elected--and Democrats suffer from the additional problem of actually liking lots of government spending. So I do not expect it to happen within the foreseeable future. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 15, 2014 11:00:54 GMT
No, I am asserting that anarcho-capitalism "undermines our national sovereignty."
I'm opposed to anarcho-anything as it represents a society without law or regulation. It assumes that all of the people will be fair and just in their interactions with others and history has proven that to be juxtaposed to reality. Many "economic conservatives" advocate "free market" capitalism based upon an "anarcho-capitalism" (e.g. Republicans/Libertarians wanting to de-regulate enterprise) and all they're saying is that owners of enterprises should be "free" to screw people whenever and in any manner that they can. I oppose the deregulation of enterprise where the Rights of the Person can be violated by others.
I'm also opposed to "crony-capitalism" which is when there is economic favoritism in the laws and regulations and "protectionism" is a form of favoritism. Immigration quotas are a form of "protectionism" reflective of crony-capitalism and it adversely affects the economy. Immigration quotas violate the Right of Liberty of the Person to go where they please for peaceful purposes. As a "libertarian" my support for the Liberty of the Person is a primary foundation of my political ideology so that shouldn't come as a surprise.
When addressing "national sovereignty" we need to understand that the "sovereignty of the nation" is merely a reflection of the cumulative "sovereignty of the individuals" of the nation. The "Sovereignty of the United States" is established by the "Sovereignty of the People of the United States" under the US Constitution and we must always remember that the "People" includes both the citizen and non-citizen (premanent) residents of the United States.
How the "sovereignty of the nation" can be compromised is a discussion for another thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 15, 2014 11:31:44 GMT
Again, it is evident that you believe that the imbalance between the federal government's annual income and its annual expenditures is a matter of insufficient taxation--especially upon The (Hated!) Rich. I would beg to differ. The best way to stop inflation, in my opinion--in fact, probably the only way--would be to return to the gold standard, which was largely abandoned by FDR, and then entirely jetissoned by Richard Nixon. And I would certainly favor this; although I am not very optimistic about its being accomplished. As for your analogy as concerning the ARM: The fact is that these autopilot increases could be very quickly reversed by Congress, if it wished to do so. But members of both major parties tend to be averse to root-canal economics--it is just not the best way to get elected or re-elected--and Democrats suffer from the additional problem of actually liking lots of government spending. So I do not expect it to happen within the foreseeable future.
Why is there an assumption that calling for "fair taxation" reflects hatred of the rich? In 2011 Mitt Romney paid a federal tax rate about a 14% on over $22 million in income and I paid about a 28% federal tax rate on about 1/200th of that amount of income. I don't "hate" Mitt Romney or his income but I do believe he should be paying at least the same rate of taxation on his income that I have to pay instead of paying about 1/2 of what I pay.
You've read my proposal for federal and it imposes "fair taxation" that would fully fund the authorized expenditures of government.
In truth the "gold standard" still exists under the Constitution and laws of the United States. The problem is that Congress refuses to enforce the laws. The law that isn't being enforced is Title 12 › Chapter 3 › Subchapter XII › § 411.
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411
Under the laws of the United States a Federal Reserve note is an "on demand promissory note" redeemable in species coinage being produced by the US Mint.
There's only one problem related to enforcement of this law by the government is that the US government doesn't have the bullion necessary to "coin (the) money" required to redeem outstanding Federal Reserve notes but this can be easily rectified by Congress.
The "lawful money" of the United States is currently American Eagle gold, platinum, and silver coins being produced by the US Mint based upon The Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985 that re-valued the coinage of the United States in accordance with Article I Section 8 Clause 4 ("To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof"). The "problem" is that the "value of the coinage" if all of the reserve bullion of the United States was "coined into lawful money" is far less than the debt of the United States that is represented by Federal Reserve (on demand "promissory") notes subject to redemption under Title 12.
The solution to the problem is relatively simply. Congress can "re-value" to coinage (lawful money) of the United States so that the US Treasury has enough gold, platinum, and silver bullion to redeem Federal Reserve notes on demand. Based upon the US gold reserves and the national debt that the US government is responsible for redeeming I calculated that the new "value of money" would have to be based upon $5000/oz of gold as opposed to the current $50/oz of gold established by the Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985.
Simple solution: Re-value the "lawful money" coinage and then enforce Title 12 where a person can redeem Federal Reserve notes in "New American Eagle" coinage where $5,000 in Federal Reserve notes will be redeemed with a $5,000 "New American Eagle" coin containing one ounce of pure gold. Of course with the "market value" of gold being about $1,200/oz currently I wouldn't anticipate a rush on redemption in US gold coinage but it does reset the value mathmatically so that the government could redeem the national debt in gold coinage.
PS The Federal Reserve has issued more "Federal Reserve notes" that what the US government is required to redeem and it would be the responsibility of the Federal Reserve to come up with the US Gold Coinage to redeem those additional Federal Reserve Notes.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 15, 2014 23:32:56 GMT
No, I am asserting that anarcho-capitalism "undermines our national sovereignty."
I'm opposed to anarcho-anything as it represents a society without law or regulation. It assumes that all of the people will be fair and just in their interactions with others and history has proven that to be juxtaposed to reality. Many "economic conservatives" advocate "free market" capitalism based upon an "anarcho-capitalism" (e.g. Republicans/Libertarians wanting to de-regulate enterprise) and all they're saying is that owners of enterprises should be "free" to screw people whenever and in any manner that they can. I oppose the deregulation of enterprise where the Rights of the Person can be violated by others.
I'm also opposed to "crony-capitalism" which is when there is economic favoritism in the laws and regulations and "protectionism" is a form of favoritism. Immigration quotas are a form of "protectionism" reflective of crony-capitalism and it adversely affects the economy. Immigration quotas violate the Right of Liberty of the Person to go where they please for peaceful purposes. As a "libertarian" my support for the Liberty of the Person is a primary foundation of my political ideology so that shouldn't come as a surprise.
When addressing "national sovereignty" we need to understand that the "sovereignty of the nation" is merely a reflection of the cumulative "sovereignty of the individuals" of the nation. The "Sovereignty of the United States" is established by the "Sovereignty of the People of the United States" under the US Constitution and we must always remember that the "People" includes both the citizen and non-citizen (premanent) residents of the United States.
How the "sovereignty of the nation" can be compromised is a discussion for another thread.
To speak broadly of "non-citizen (permanent) residents of the United States" is surely to confuse illegals--who may, indeed, be "permanent" residents of the US --with legal residents actively seeking American citizenship. And to assert that any immigration quotas violate some fundamental human right is to claim that a nation should have no right to protect itself against being overwhelmed. (If Americans emigrated to Mexico in roughly the same numbers that Mexicans come to the US, this would really not be much of a problem, from a practical perspective. But when many times as many Mexicans come to live in the US as vice-versa, it should be obvious that our country cannot forever sustain such numbers.) |
|
